Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft States GPL3 Doesn't Apply to Them
pilsner.urquell writes "Microsoft yesterday issued a statement proclaiming that it isn't bound by GPLv3. Groklaw has a very humorous rejoinder to the company's claim. From that article: 'They think they can so declare, like an emperor, and it becomes fiat. It's not so easy. I gather Microsoft's lawyers have begun to discern the GPL pickle they are in. In any case it won't be providing any support or updates or anything at all in connection with those toxic (to them) vouchers it distributed as part of the Novell deal ... These two -- I can't decide if it's an elaborate dance like a tango or more like those games where you place a cloth with numbers on the floor and you have to get into a pretzel with your hands and feet to touch all the right numbers. Whichever it is, Novell and Microsoft keep having to strike the oddest poses to try to get around the GPL. If they think this new announcement has succeeded, I believe they will find they are mistaken. In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, GPLv3 worked.'" EWeek has further analysis of this proclamation.
How can MS be bound by GPL3 if they avoided using GPL3ed code after June 29? Can you write code that is licensed by future versions of GPL? Wouldn't that make it dangerous for someone to use the code in case they do not like the future version? Sorry for the ignorance Cheers!
Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
...that tax laws don't apply to me. Oh, and those pesky laws about parking and speeding, too.
So I guess Microsoft's EULA does not apply either?
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Serious question here:
Has there been any successful court action enforcing any version of the GPL?
Not settlements. I'm talking about an instance where a court in the U.S. has upheld GPL against a violator.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
I declare Microsoft's EULA does not apply to me.
Sounds about as useful as the emancipation proclamation and the time of it's creation. to sum up: Lincoln: "All the slaves in Confederated-held (aka not our)territories are free!" and MS: "We declare that we are free from the laws of the government under which we are placed"
I can't decide if it's an elaborate dance like a tango or more like those games where you place a cloth with numbers on the floor and you have to get into a pretzel with your hands and feet to touch all the right numbers.
That's the most bass-ackwards mangling of Twister I've ever heard. Didn't these people have childhoods!?
--Obyron
I am now king of this playground and there is nothing you can say to stop it in any way forever and ever.
+1 Agree -1 Disagree
As long as they don't redistribute any GPLv3 software, they're correct.
The core of Linux, for example, is pretty much guaranteed to stay at GPLv2 (not just for "Linus didn't like it" reasons, but also pretty big logistical issues like "getting every copyright holder to agree on the change").
I'm guessing the bits and pieces that make up any distro will gradually contain more and more GPLv3 software -- then they basically have to deal with it (accept the v3 license to redistribute those parts, or not accept it and NOT distribute the new versions of that software).
If they (or anyone) wants to fork software based on the last GPLv2 version and maintain the fork themselves, they're welcome to, of course.
But are they even distributing at all? Can someone clarify the certificate thing for me?
How very interesting. The Novell support certificates that Microsoft distributes don't entitle the recipient to get support for GPLv3 code. So why would anyone buy one of these things from them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twister_(game)
Microsoft made a deal with Novell so that Novell will give a copy of
GNU/Linux to anyone with a Microsoft voucher. After this deal, Microsoft
recommended Novell's GNU/Linux distribution and distributed those vouchers
to anyone who wanted one.
So they are basically contracting Novell to distribute GNU/Linux on their
behalf. In legal terms, they're "procuring the distribution of" GPL'd
software, and that's covered by copyright.
I think it's clear that Microsoft and Novell are together distributing GPL'd
software, and the GPLv3 project's team of lawyers are convinced that
Microsoft is indeed distributing GPL'd software.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Microsoft used to warn anyone who would listen about the GPL being viral. Touching it might give you free software cooties, and worse, infect your own intellectual property. But apparently Microsoft has found the solution to that, and is embracing the new, non-viral GPLv3!
As always, Microsoft remains committed to working with the open source software community to help improve interoperability for customers working in mixed source environments and deliver IP assurance.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sounds like a geekier version of Twister.
which is totally what she said
It will have worked, when a piece of Microsoft's code is opened for all to see. Wake me up then...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If they ever use any GPLv3 code, they are indeed bound by the license. There's only one way to test this though, and that's to have it tried in court. I know there's little chance of the Linux kernel itself ever becoming GPLv3, but I hope people write lots of GPLv3 software for no reason than that MS said this (yes, I am a fangirl. Sue me.). Someone has got to take these kleptocrats to court.
~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
Re: How can MS be bound by GPL3 if they avoided using GPL3ed code after June 29?
Yes, you can. "GPLv2, or later"
You are (intentionally?) misrepresenting what the GPL says. If Microsoft distributes GPLv2 then ***Microsoft*** gets to choose if they are bound by GPLv2 or GPLv3. Example, I downloaded Apache back when it was covered by GPL2. I can make changes to it and distribute those changes under v2 or v3 if I want to. The people who made Apache cannot force me to upgrade to v3. However, now that v3 is out, Apache will be distributed under v3. If I now download Apache, I'm stuck in version 3.
So the answer to grandparent's question, "can MS be bound by GPL3 if they avoided using GPL3ed code" is that yes, MS avoids being bound by it. Basically they would have to never update linux - or fork it - but what they have right now is GPL2 and GPL2 it shall stay.
read GPL2 for yourself
If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
Why would anyone ever release code under a "GPLv2 or later" clause? If the code writer wants to protect his/her rights, I'd think they'd want to stick to something that's known rather than gamble on something unknown coming some time in the future.
the EULA says you cannot copy (even to another computer you own) you cannot look at, benchmark or otherwise disinter the internal workings. You agree that MS can come in and change stuff adding programs and removing others as they feel fit. You also allow them to audit your machine.
Oh, and they can change the terms as they wish just by posting to their webpage.
Seeing as how Novell is an owner of some of the GNU/Linux codebase, I doubt that's going to happen. They'll also do their best to keep the Linux kernel from moving to GPL3. As long as Novell abides by the terms of the license the kernel is distributed under, it would be completely against the intent and spirit of the GPL to prevent them from redistributing it.
multifariam.net -- yet another nerd blog
So let's say that the GPLv3's lawyers are correct and that they find some means by which to bring Microsoft to court over non-distributed code. They'll sue Microsoft over Copywrite violation? Use the GPL as a defense against some future patent violation case (which will likely never come as it is much more useful as a threat)? So a bunch of geeks show up to court to thinking that they've got the big guy by the tail, and Microsoft's big nasty lawyers show up planning set a precident as to what counts as distribution and maybe give the GPL a hugely public defeat.
This entire saga sounds like the GPL crowd saying, "Aha! We got Microsoft," but I'm unconvinced that the world is turning because of it. IANAL, but I think that Microsoft would LOVE to test this in court.
Just a random thought on my part, but would the terms of the GPL License be fulfilled if someone modified the original source, and provided those who asked for a copy of the source with the entirety of the source code printed out on paper?
END COMMUNICATION
That would be bad.
For one thing Novell does contribute a good bit of code that most to things like X and like it or not Mono.
I know some people don't like the Mono project but things like Beagle, Banshee, and F-Spot are very popular.
SAX which I think is about the best X configuration program around is also GPL. More distro's should use it.
How much code has Suse/Novell put into Linux? My guess is a lot. Then you have Novell as one of the heroes in the SCO case or has everybody forgotten that?
I wish people would STOP trying to use software to enforce their political and or philosophical views.
Bottom line is you can't do it since Novell has contributed a LOT of code to Linux. They are part of the community. Not only that but the GPL so far doesn't allow for this kind of stupidity.
Next thing you know people will want to restrict FOSS users to just Communist Pacifist Methodists!
Got to love it. Welcome to GPL 4.
If you distribute this software you must
1. Distrubt the source code for the software.
2. Allow the users of the software to modify the software to better suit their needs.
3. Allow the users of the software to redistrube the software freely.
4. Must always wear the robes of the church of RMS.
5. Must spit when saying the names Microsoft and Bill Gates.
6. Must vote for the political canidates that RMS feels are not evil.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Okay so that is an oversimplification, but you cannot force someone to enter a contract to use something AFTER they have already paid for that privilege. The only legally valid EULA would be one you sign before purchasing the software.
Note that IANAL and that this is not valid legal advice not an endorsement of any practices explictiely forbidden by EULAs.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Microsoft is backing away from their odious preferential cross-licensing deal with Novell, at least with respect to GPLv3 code. You can argue that's not a win, because no source code was/will be released, but I bet Richard Stallman would disagree.
Fizz
If they think this new announcement has succeeded, I believe they will find they are mistaken. In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, GPLv3 worked.
I translate this as the following:
GPL Team: We just released GPL3.
MS: It doesn't apply to us.
GPL Team: We win!
I'd wait until a little more time has passed and lawyers on both sides hash it over a bit more before declaring victory. Especially against MS.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
The reason being that the MS Eula is subject to your state's Sale of Goods Act (or something similar). In most cases that act declares that if it looks like a sale, flies like a sale and quacks like a sale, then it is a sale. That is why MS CDs are for sale in the second hand market on E-bay, a US company.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
You think MS will go to court to set a precedent to *shrink* the scope of copyright?
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Microsoft has always viewed the GPL as a virus, and has made all attempts to avoid contact. Their paranoia on this front is legendary, and for good reason when you hear the GPL crowd react to actual or perceived violations of the GPL.
With the Support certificates, microsoft was deliberately having a competitor actually handle the support and touch the GPL code. Which is all fine and good under GPL2.
The GPL3 patent covenant is even more toxic, especially to a company like Microsoft which has a lot of patents. So they are simply saying "our certificates will not support anything on GPLv3".
In many ways, this is Microsoft's paranoid overreaction, as they are not by any means a contributor to the code, even if the certificats were valid for GPLv3, but it is an understandable conservative reaction.
Since Microsoft has never and WILL NEVER contribute or distribute GPLv3 code, yes, the statement is perfectly correct.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Yeah, that's a great way to look at it. Microsoft released a PR that said "we're not at threat." Surely that means a license which hasn't even been tested in court has "won." By the by, Microsoft is an enormous corporation with many, many lawyers. If you get lazy and start assuming you've won, then you've lost, no matter how strong your current position is.
Besides, in the long run, the camp which really won was BSD, because most large corporations are sick to death of the hoops they have to jump through for the GPL. I know, I'm going to get modded flamebait (even though I'm not flaming anyone) and troll (even though I'm not trolling) for saying this, since this is GPL love central, but in the long run, the love you get is equal to the love you give.
And MIT/BSD license gives out a hell of a lot more love than GPL. I know because my company started on the back of BSD code, and that code has more than doubled in size due to my contributions.
I'm not alone. GPL throws too much away. I believe GPLv3 is GPL's swan song, and I can't be happier that it's going away. It's time for people who write open source to stop closing it. Corporations donate an enormous amount of work to code, and GPL makes many market presences completely impossible. (Yeah yeah, linking, source release, aroo, don't care. I write Nintendo games, and it is literally impossible to use GPL code under the Nintendo license. This is a lot more common than zealots want to believe.)
Most government agencies can't use GPL. Anyone working on protected API hardware can't use GPL. Anyone working on protected hardware without a dynamic linker can't even use LGPL, which pretends it's supposed to fix these problems (hence the sweeping changes to FLTK's license.) On and on it goes.
Real men don't give code to just some people.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
This whole Trojan Voucher business should really put to rest all that annoying "GPL is viral" FUD - well done!
sic transit gloria mundi
What do all these have in common. It uses current cash to cover up misdeeds and protect future profits. Who in this world has a billion dollars to sue MS for violating the GPL. Do I see any hands? Then it does not apply to them right now. Perhaps in 5 or 10 years, if someone actually finds the money to sue, it will. But then it probably won't make difference.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
A license is a form of contract and lays its foundations on contract law. Which means that all the standard issues (e.g. consideration, acceptance, etc.) still apply. While consideration is usually built-in by the fact that the license provides you with rights to use something you wouldn't otherwise have, other standard contract issues still apply.
You are confused. Microsoft provided vouchers for someone else's service. Microsoft's agreement only goes as far as paying for those products on your behalf. The licensing of those products is irrelevant as Microsoft is not distributing them. They are only providing a credit toward purchases.
It's a bit like saying that because I won a car on Wheel of Fortune, CBS is now responsible for the warranty. Which is nonsense, the manufacturer is still responsible for the warranty.
That doesn't even make sense. You purchase products from Novell, and Microsoft foots the bill. You and you alone are responsible for the license agreement between you and Novell unless the use of the Microsoft vouchers contained contract terms that implicitly made Microsoft a party to the agreement. And I can't think of any reason why Microsoft would do that.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
MS isn't distributing code. What they are distributing is a piece of paper, authorizing a user to receive code from Novell. If I go out and buy a gift certificate, give that to you, and you buy a RedHat or SuSE license with it, am I bound by the GPLv3? I don't think so. I believe this is where MS is going with their line of thinking... Now, if these certificates come bundled with media, containing GPLv3 code, then that's an entirely different story, unless the bundle was put together by a supplier, like Dell.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
"Owners" of "public" code?
I skimmed both linked articles. Is there a summary of what they are trying to avoid?
If I, an end user of GPL'd software, decide I want to follow the terms of the GPLv3 instead of v2, GPLv2 gives me that option. The problem with this is any software distributed by novell now that is licensed under the gplv2 is automatically licensed under the gplv3 if the end user so wishes. Microsoft has no rights when it comes to removing that option from the end user.
"but what they have right now is GPL2 and GPL2 it shall stay."
This is a flawed assumption. Microsoft has inadvertently relinquished all say in WHICH version is distributed in their name, that lies in the domain of Novell who have jumped on this and said (likely to ingratiate themselves back into the open source community) that they will only distribute the most up to date version of SUSE regardless of whether it has GPL3 OR GPL2 code. This is what Microsoft is dreading and can do nothing about since they never stipulated in the patent covenant agreement which code they were giving covenant protection for, only that it was Suse enterprise linux. This is why Microsoft has turned pale and are trying to turn themselves inside out to vainly free themselves of this hideous situation they have gotten themselves into, and hideous indeed it is. Novell is not playing the puppet on this one and aren't doing what they are told (nor do they need to either since it isn't in their agreement).
Novell will provide versions of SUSE with GPL3 code to any person that shows a voucher branded with microsoft's consent to "distribute" a copy, the covenant protections of the microsoft/novell agreement AND the gpl3 terms of distribution will flow to the reciever, and then to any other person that the copy of SUSE is distributed to. Microsoft can do NOTHING about this, they've already done the hard work and passed out the vouchers, thousands and thousands of them, they have "distributed" SUSE linux to the masses essentially (with no expiry date I might add) which is stipulated in their agreement (in other words they MUST pass out all the vouchers according to their agreement with Novell), now all one has to do is wait for the Novell to integrate new GPL3 licensed code, which they have said they will do, show your shiny voucher, smile, pick up you shiny new novell cds/dvd and load the distro onto bittorrent, then laugh evilly as all of microsoft's carefully calculated effort goes up in smoke. This has essentially undone a decade of patent hoarding and scheming to put linux and all gpl code into microsoft's pocket. If it were not true then you wouldn't hear microsoft screaming so loudly that it isn't.
"News at 11." God, this story is SO old, isn't it?
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
It will be really interesting to see how the new gpl effects their linux strategy.
Answers to even the toughest problems
How should I refer to the GPL licence if I want to release my project under the *latest* GPL version only (without editing all the source files)? I do not want to say that GPLv3 or later *at your option*. When a new verion is released I want the latest GPL version apply to that new version. Even better would be if I could force the use of the latest GPL version in effect at the time of redistribution. Would this work:
"This program is licenced under the latest version of the GPL licences."
Is the phrase latest version well defined in the legal sense?
Maybe the FSF should set up a web page always pointing to the full text of the latest GPL version and I could include a link to that.
Are you people neocons or something? I don't see how the parent's statement about Presidential "signing statements" is a troll. Mod the damned thing funny, because it IS funny.
PS- "funny" grants no karma. Now go ahead and mod me "offtopic".
-mcgrew (sm62704)
I heard that there are twelve types of people.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
IANAL but AFAIK when you write a piece of code and GPL it, you're basically the owner of the code but you grant the person who downloads it to use and redistribute it.
Linus owns Linux. Doesn't he?
Y
No, no-one has ever suggested that GPLv3 somehow permits the unauthorized distribution of proprietary software. This is your own kooky reading of the debate.
What has been claimed is that by participating in the distribution of GPLv3 programs via the SUSE certificates, MS will be forced to comply with GPLv3 with respect to the software *in the SUSE distribution*. If true, this means that they forfeit their right to sue anyone, whether or not they are using SUSE, over any patents they claim are violated by the GPLv3 software that MS distributes.
I can't comment on whether or not this interpretation will hold up in court, and of course SUSE doesn't include any GPLv3 code *yet*. But your suggestion that RMS is somehow hoping to use GPLv3 to gain access to MS software is just plain wrong.
yp.
"What Microsoft is attempting to ensure here is to deny any party the ability to claim that there was some form of constructive agreement to the GPLv3 terms."
But if they distribute GPLv3 terms, then doesn't the distribution signal signal agreement with the terms? I'm just asking.
Seems to me, they're doing the equivalent of a consumer saying the EULA of MS's products don't apply because they never really agreed to it before they bought it.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
This is the company that said "Antitrust laws shouldn't apply to us".
While it's useful to know the exact legal status of the vouchers and GPLv3 implications, let's not lose sight of the more important issue here. This whole MS-Novell agreement was, on MS' part (and, IMHO, that's all that matters here; Novell's motives are very secondary), intended to frighten users away from "wild" versions of Linux through the phantasm of patent litigation, and corral them into using only versions distributed by MS "partners," either in order to extract a Microsoft tax or generally suppress Linux adoption.
The critical aspect of the vouchers controversy is not whether MS is definitely bound by the GPL to refrain from patent litigation against corporate Linux users;the critical aspect is, How does this affect the perceptions of the potential victims, er, customers? If you consider the potential for the voucher-and-GPLv3 combination to defuse MS' patent threats in any possible litigation, together with the refusal of most Linux distributors to play along with MS, the net FUD effect of MS' patent-threat campaign would seem to be significantly diminished. THAT, I submit, is the critical factor in this whole circus.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
.. a bull and a matador.. let's see who slays who! will the bull kill the matador or will the matador kill the bull?
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
No, I know how it works, I just thought it was funny the way those words looked together. But I think a better way of looking at it is not as "owners" of code, but rather as "authors".
"but if the any part of the client's business model involves selling licenses to software products, it's not clear how wide the GPL can spread."
You do realize that if you write software and release it under GPL, you are also free to release it under other licenses as well, correct?
The trick is, if you use *somebody else's* GPL'd software to reduce development costs, then you incur an obligation to release the source code as well. It's not that hard. In fact, it's so easy that you don't need a lawyer.
Maybe that's why they suggest staying from it? Just a guess.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
It appears that Zonk has misunderstood Microsoft's statement. I will not say whether he did it willfully or not.
The summary is very misleading. I read the statement as saying that Microsoft believes they do not use or distribute software covered under the version 3 license. You could just as easily read this statement to be a reassurance to their customers that the support vouchers have not suddenly become invalid, but they are limited. Since Microsoft is not the one doing the limiting, they can't be the one responsible for it.
Furthermore, I find it incredibly offensive that FSF would stoop to tactics like this. It goes far beyond their mandate and it causes me to question the fitness of the current FSF leadership. Say what you like about Microsoft (and I'd probably join you), the FSF does not provide software even approaching the same quality as the commercial products.
Correct. I enter into an agreement with the local government that in exchange for keeping an animal I will register that animal with the government so that the government may track all domestic animals within their jurisdiction. Without the license, local laws usually prohibit the keeping of animals. Thus the need for a contractual relationship between you and the local government.
Yeah, see, that's a contract. A unilateral offer to provide copying and modification rights in exchange for terms that prevent you from making modifications public without sharing the source code for them. That is a contract.
I'll say it again, a license is simply a form of contract. It's not that hard to figure out.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Yes sir. The GPL is a unilateral contract offer that one side has already agreed to. Thus it goes into effect as soon as the other side agrees. Since Microsoft has not explicitly agreed to the license (or explicitly distributed GPLed code, thus signifying acceptance or violation of copyright law) then Microsoft is not bound. That's my interpretation anyway. Providing a credit offer to pay for someone else's services does not, in any legal theory I've ever heard, bind you to the terms of the transaction between the buyer and the seller. You may accept certain legal responsibilities in that case (generally only as far as assuring that your offer was completed to the full written and intended terms of the contract between you and the buyer), but you have no real relation to the seller.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Anything is possible, but revoking Novell's right specifically would cause GNU/Linux to cease to be open source software (it would fail under section 5 of the OSD imo). The wisdom would also be somewhat questionable.
"is it possible to revoke Novell's right to distribute a GNU/Linux distribution?"
You want some cheese with that whine?
Seriously, though... bringing in alleged bribery of government officials? How does this add value to the discussion?
Feh.
You couldn't be any dumber ... could you.
I wonder... And yes, I'm just wondering at this point... If Microsoft didn't think it managed to snag a single contact person through their contract with Novell(aka someone legally entitled to sell, or cross-license) code to them, more than any other right...
Someone particularly paranoid might also think that Novell, as the owner of the Unix trademark, might make an ideal scapegoat in a lawsuit...
"You were distributing..."
"We did so in good faith, and even Novell didn't know we were in the wrong..."
Especially given that for a GPL violation(say if Microsoft did copy GPL code) whoever they stole code from could sue, it would be either the fsf, or the coder, NOT Redhat or another company whose stock value might be affected by suing Microsoft...
At least, I hope US law is not that insane yet.
Just imagine handing out amazon.com gift certificates, or worse, vouchers for internet access.
There's a very big false assumption that everybody seems to be making here. I am, of course, not a lawyer (so this is not legal advice).
MS have not distributed GPL3 code, no matter how much we would like them to have. They have offered a covenant not to sue Novell's customers, and vouchers offering support for Novell's product. This is very different. None of this makes MS a party to the GPL because MS do not need any kind of license or copyright provision just to say "I won't sue Joe Bloggs, and I'll help him with his technical issues". No matter what the FooBarSpecialLicense attached to the product Joe Bloggs happens to own says!
(And if you think otherwise ask yourself this: what part of copyright law would MS have broken by saying "I'm happy to assist with Joe's problem but I don't agree to your license agreement"? On what grounds could you sue them? Or if they say "Mr Novell, if you sell Joe a copy of product X, I'm happy to talk to him about any problems he has with it; but I don't agree to your license agreement" What would you sue them for? If there is no potential copyright breach, there is no license.)
What the Novell-MS deal could have impinged on was Novell's right to distribute SUSE at all. If they were unable to offer the equal patent cover required by the GPL (and clearly they are unable to extend Microsoft's offer of patent protection to non-customers without Microsoft's consent), then they would have been unable to meet the terms of the GPL3 and thus unable to legally distribute the software. Except that Eben Moglen kindly gave them a get-out clause at the end of paragraph 11 of the GPL.
In most countries, as I understand it, even if Novell hadn't been given a get-out clause, the only result would have been the Novell-MS deal being "frustrated". "Frustration" is where an unforseen circumstance prevents a contract from being possible to fulfill. This appears to me to have happened. An unforseen change (the FSF deliberately altering the GPL licensing terms to affect the deal) would have prevented Novell from being able to fulfill its end of the Novell-MS deal. It wouldn't have been able to distribute SUSE under GPL3 because it couldn't extend MS's patent provisions beyond what MS offered in the initial contract without asking MS first. Thus the Novell-MS deal would get terminated, and there might have been a little wrangle about "reasonable recompense for the services provided". (Novell would need to go along to a court to get the contract declared frustrated, however.)
But with the get-out clause in para 11, even that won't happen.
All up, Eben Moglen's grand plan doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans.
Disclaimer: Once again, this isn't legal advice. It is based on an engineer's shaky memory of engineering law lectures, and has the potential of being utterly wrong.
Fixed that for you.
FTA:
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
The point is that the GPL is so obviously-enforceable, that there is no need to test it.
More exactly, the GPL license is so legally solid under US copyright law, no-one has yet been suicidal enough to see a court case challenging its validity to the end. Serious legal brainpower went into the development of the GPL; invariably, challengers within reach of US civil jurisdiction have settled by complying with the license terms. Challenging the GPL is almost as silly as going to trial before a judge after you try to mug the City Chief of Police during his press conference in the front lobby of police headquarters.
Eventually, the GPL will be tested, more likely than not by someone who is simply willing and able to lose a few thousand bucks just to make sure there is such a court precedent.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
It wouldn't have any consequences. Novell already has a license to distribute GNU/Linux as long as they comply with the license restrictions. Nowhere does the GPL (v2) say that the license can be revoked on a whim. The owners can, of course, relicense their code under a different license. However, that does not affect Novell's license.
Haha. Good parody of a complete dipshit. I imagine you got modded as Flamebait because people thought you were serious and hence a completely ridiculous idiot. I get the joke, though.
I am not party to the MS EULA
No.
Linux 0.01 was distributed under the following license:
This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds, but all or part of it may be redistributed provided you do the following:
- Full source must be available (and free), if not with the distribution then at least on asking for it.
- Copyright notices must be intact. (In fact, if you distribute only parts of it you may have to add copyrights, as there aren't (C)'s in all files.) Small partial excerpts may be copied without bothering with copyrights.
- You may not distibute this for a fee, not even "handling" costs.
The Linux 0.12 release notes said:
The Linux copyright will change: I've had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft, removing the "you may not distribute it for money" condition. I agree. I propose that the copyright be changed so that it confirms to GNU - pending approval of the persons who have helped write code. I assume this is going to be no problem for anybody: If you have grievances ("I wrote that code assuming the copyright would stay the same") mail me. Otherwise The GNU copyleft takes effect as of the first of February. If you do not know the gist of the GNU copyright - read it.The Linux 0.95 release notes said:
Linux-0.95 is NOT public domain software, but is copyrighted by me. The copyright conditions are the same as those imposed by the GNU copyleft: get a copy of the GNU copyleft at any major ftp-site (if it carries linux, it probably carries a lot of GNU software anyway, and they all contain the copyright).
The copyleft is pretty detailed, but it mostly just means that you may freely copy linux for your own use, and redistribute all/parts of it, as long as you make source available (not necessarily in the same distribution, but you make it clear how people can get it for nothing more than copying costs). Any changes you make that you distribute will also automatically fall under the GNU copyleft.
NOTE! The linux unistd library-functions (the low-level interface to linux: system calls etc) are excempt from the copyright - you may use them as you wish, and using those in your binary files won't mean that your files are automatically under the GNU copyleft. This concerns /only/ the unistd-library and those (few) other library functions I have
written: most of the rest of the library has it's own copyrights (or is
public domain). See the library sources for details of those.
Linux 0.99.2 was the first version that actually included the GPLv2 COPYING file.
Until Linux 2.4.0-test8 was released, no particular version of the GPL was actually specified for the kernel as a whole*, although it was clear that GPLv2 applied. Section 9 of GPLv2 states:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
The copyright status of Linux is a little more complex than most people would like (and than some people would like to believe.)
Footnote:
* This isn't true for individual files. To this day, some files in Linux are explicitly 'v2 or later', some are 'v2 only', some are BSD-licensed, etc. The only common thing is that (except for some disputed firmware files) they are all GPLv2-compatible.
http://outcampaign.org/
The thing you need to remember is that by default, you have no rights to the source code of said GPL software. It's covered by the same copyright laws that make it illegal to pirate Windows and such. However, there is the added option of gaining access to the source, if you choose to agree to certain terms.
Your whole idea of whether or not there is a transaction taking place is a technical nitpick that can be left up to the courts. It's along the same lines as the debate over the validity of click-through EULAs. What if I view the source and see where the "Agree" button links, but never actually click the button? Is that the same as clicking the button? As for being able to download it without clicking on some sort of license agreement, does that mean if I find a copy of Windows on some site that allows open downloading, I suddenly can use it without any regard for its licensing? Can I just take something from a sidewalk vendor stand, since it's out in the open and not a "real" store? Whether or not downloading software packaged with license details constitutes a legally binding agreement is completely separate from the validity of the license itself.
GPL is most definitely a "free with strings attached" license. You get it for free, and the attached string is that you have to pass it on to others freely (just as you received it freely). If you don't like that idea, don't use/support the GPL. The rest of your comments about transactions are legal details which don't apply to the GPL any more than to any other license, except that it's easier to find GPL software which you could use in violation of copyright law (as opposed to the hidden-away closed source of other programs).
Next time you are at the supermarket and they have those little hotdogs with toothpicks and a sign that says "take one, free", imagine how goofy it would be if there was a piece of paper next to them that had terms and conditions of taking it for free. Next time you're at the supermarket and they have one of those "buy one, get one free" sales, take the free one and tell them how goofy it is that they're forcing you to do something else to get the free one.This makes Opensource look very untrustworthy to me.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Microsoft has publicly stated that they do not agree to the terms of the GPL v3, will not provide support to Novell customers using software under the GPL v3, and want nothing to do with it. As the License is a contract between the copyright holder and the licensee to distribute said software, Microsoft not agreeing to said terms means Microsoft does not accept them. If a Microsoft employee hands a friend a Red Hat disc, previous to this statement, you might be able to argue that Microsoft is distributing software. However, Microsoft's statement makes it pretty clear that they do not agree to distribute.
Now, if Microsoft or their agents distributes GPL v3 code, have expressly denied agreeing to the GPL v3, they are in copyright violation. They have copied someone else's software without permission, violating their copyright.
This statement is clever, because it means that if someone at Microsoft inadvertently distributes GPL v3 software, prior to this one MIGHT have argued that the implicitly agreed to GPL v3's terms, and attempted to get court order to force Microsoft to comply (and release some code). Now you have to sue them for copyright infringement.
Why is this important? Well, if they distribute software with GPL v3 code, you can probably get an injunction to stop them, you'll be able to sue for damages (although illegally copying software that you are giving away for $0 albeit with copying restrictions seems hard to do... you've been wronged, but damages are probably $0. The USFL sued the NFL and won an anti-trust suit, however, since the USFL's poor business decisions were determined to run them out of business, the award was $1, after appeals and interest added, the USFL Collected $3.76. I presume that a copyright infringement suit against Microsoft would be similar, collect $1, since no monetary damages were awarded.
I am not a lawyer, but this is my game theory read on the case.
Reply: Finally, someone that understands MS Lawyers and Mr. Gates, you must be the Sheriff of Nottingham. At least you appear not to be one of those treasonous subversive Welfare-Corporatist corrupting democracy and capitalism in the USA.
Don't worry, I am just deep sea fishing?
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Microsoft seems to be preparing to fight GPLv3 with two defences. They plan to deny that the coupons constitute distributing GPLv3 code and they plan to deny that GPLv3 can force its own interpretation of the Microsoft-Novell agreement upon Microsoft.
I would like to suggest a third defence to Microsoft which would probably be much more effective than the first two. Microsoft could pay Novell to cancel the Microsoft-Novell agreement before Novell actually distributes any GPLv3 code. Abolishing the Microsoft-Novell agreement would forestall the possibility that the Free Software Foundation might be able to extend Microsoft's software patent protection to all open source developers, distributors, and users.
---------------------
Steve Stites
Don't worry about it. The game is only fun with attractive members of the opposite sex...
Your logic is:
If I give away things to takers, I can't tell them not to sell it on eBay.
If I sell things to people, I can tell them not to sell it on eBay?
Well shit, it's both your choice to buy the thing I sold and the thing you took for free. I didn't force anything upon you. Imagine how goofy it would be if you distributed those little hotdogs. Gee, really? The license applies to distribution; you can use the free software to do whatever you want. Only when distributing or modifying the code do you need to concern yourself with the license.
Maurice Wilkes, debugging, 1949
This creates an interesting issue if Microsoft ever ends up using GPLv3 stuff within the company. IIRC, giving GPL'd code to contractors (as opposed to employees) is considered distribution per the license. Essentially, Microsoft is risking blowing the 235 patents if they have Linux or other patent-contested software available on their internal network, assuming contractors have access to it. One download, and the patents extend to everyone per the license.
This is somewhat off-topic, but I honestly wonder if this will sharply limit the use of GPLv3 software in corporations. Seems like you'd have to vet every single piece of GPLv3 software you use against your patent portfolio to be comfortable, or force contractors to download all their own tools from an external source (which is kind of a nightmare if you're trying to keep everyone on the same version).
Oh, really? So they haven't agreed to allow you to redistribute the code under the terms of the GPL? If the owner of the copyright hasn't agreed to that stipulation, then how do you figure that any GPL code is properly licensed? After all, the owner could take you to court and say, "I never agreed to allow redistribution under the GPL!"
Your insightfulness amazes me.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You really don't get this, do you?
If I go to a restaurant and order a cheeseburger, I have initiated an implied contract. The contract is that I will pay $X in exchange for a cheeseburger cooked to my specifications. If the restaurant delivers the cheeseburger, I have to pay. If, however, the restaurant delivers a chicken sandwich by accident, I am under no obligation to accept and pay for that chicken sandwich. Similarly, if my cheeseburger is cooked medium rare rather than the well-done I requested, I am under no obligation to accept delivery of or pay for the cheeseburger.
Now, as long as both sides hold up their end of the bargain (I pay, restaurant gives me cheeseburger as requested) everyone is happy and no one has lost anything. Thus a contract has been executed without taking away any rights.
This is contract law 101. I am not a lawyer, and even I know that. Don't argue the difference between a license and a contract unless you know what a contract is in the first place.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
It's been quite a while since I've read through the license (v2, that is), but IIRC, it states that the distributer must make available a machine-readable copy of the source.
How to enable garbage collection on a system without protected memory: #define malloc() ((void *) rand())
The GPL doesn't restrict you at all. It doesn't stop you doing anything that you couldn't already do with the program in question.
COPYRIGHT law is the restriction, and is there by default. The GPL then waives part of that restriction.
If I give you a program, unless I have said otherwise, you don't have the right to distribute it.
If MS distributes something under the GPLv3, then that is licensed under the GPLv3, nothing else.
If MS distributes something under the GPLv3 or something that is a derivative work of something under the GPLv3, or something that contains part of a GPLv3'd work except if this containing could be construed as an "aggregate" as per the clause #5 of the GPLv3, then that is licensed under the GPLv3, nothing else.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
She then argues that "license is a type of contract" is a valid, but not (in her opinion) relevant to the issue:
Which, in all reality, has no impact on the discussion at hand. Even if you believe a license to be separate from a contract, I fail to see how it has any bearing on the issue at hand. PJ is still asking a judge to rule that an agreement between Party A and Party B has a binding effect on a completely different agreement between Party C. I simply have never heard of any such case law. While I'm not a lawyer (and neither is PJ, mind you; though she is slightly more qualified than I
I'd love to see caselaw that suggests otherwise, but until I see such documents I feel that PJ is on very shaky ground. It's one thing to tear apart the nonsense spewed by the likes of SCO. It's a whole other thing for a paralegal to go toe to toe with a legal team like Microsoft's. Especially on a rather extreme legal theory.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
now all one has to do is wait for the Novell to integrate new GPL3 licensed code, which they have said they will do, show your shiny voucher, smile, pick up you shiny new novell cds/dvd and load the distro onto bittorrent, then laugh evilly as all of microsoft's carefully calculated effort goes up in smoke. This has essentially undone a decade of patent hoarding and scheming to put linux and all gpl code into microsoft's pocket. If it were not true then you wouldn't hear microsoft screaming so loudly that it isn't.
No. Microsoft's patent portfolio doesn't magically pass into the public domain because the GPL's terms have changed. Basically Microsoft is saying their vouchers are no good for GPLv3 software. Which means their "patent protection" isn't good anymore, and no longer makes SLES any better than any other distro. Novell could accuse Microsoft of breach of contract (and very well might do so), but Microsoft's patent portfolio is still all their own, and will remain so until they knowingly, officially distribute software under GPLv3 terms.
include $sig;
1;
Actually, I think you would do well to rethink that position. You might be shocked to learn who's given away more source code than anyone else on this planet. Have a look around MSDN. There's a lot of stuff up there.
Am I saying they're goodbear? Hell, no. But this is one place in which hating Microsoft doesn't work at all. Sure, they're doing it because it's good for their bottom line, but that aside, Microsoft has given away two point three metric buttloads of code, and it's all under extremely generous licensure.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Your assumption seems to be that Novell could hand out copies of linux that are licensed with GPLv3, and Microsoft could do nothing about. If that's the case, how can you seriously consider Microsoft to be distributing the software? If they have NO ability to decide what software the users receive, I highly doubt that constitutes distribution in any important sense of the word.
This discussion suggests an entertaining scenario:
Microsoft has the resources, and OS sales are a small part of MS revenue; most comes from applications that sell well on any platform. Gates assigns a good project manager—one with a ripe sense of humor—to put together a crack team to fork linux/gnu based on pre-GPLV3 code only. The new source is scrupulously annotated, open and available. It is licensed with whatever terms both satisfy GPLV2 and cause the greatest rending of shirts among the Fosserati.
The most important new code in the fork is an extension of the APIs so that Windows applications run native alongside linux applications without virtualization. It includes virtualization anyway. New developments can mix and match. It supports .Net.
It is released as Microsoft New Generation Linux, sold in a pretty box loaded with advertising for MS applications. The OS is on a non-DRM self-installing DVD loaded with the OS, every driver known to man, a selection of best of breed free applications, and all the source. Microsoft pulls out all the stops in applying everything they've learned from the millions it has spent on usability research. The box includes a really well-written user guide, and discount certificates for the Windows Office Suite. Distributors like Dell are given a deal that fails to draw a substantial distinction between MS Windows and MS NG Linux.
Between the manuals and the DVD, ordinary consumers can install and use all of this without actually coming into contact with the linux community or its online resources. The great mass of consumers, who would rather spend a few bucks than become their own tech specialists, will buy more software, much of it from MS.
Experienced linuchim, if they have any interest, can buy it, get a copy from someone (it's legal), or download the three-gigabyte distribution file.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
I have just checked the GNU site, and the last t-shirt they offer is a stale 2001's levitating gnu...
Unfortunately, seeing as how the GPLv2 is a distribution license and was the license at the time the Microsoft-Novell agreement was made added with the fact that Microsoft isn't actually distributing it, it'd be hard to make that stick in a court of law.
No sane court of law is going to allow an ex post facto license change alter the parties of a contract particularly without the additional party's consent.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
IANAL, but as I understand it, a license is a specific type of contract. To be specific, it's one that grants a single party specific rights, which are terminated if they are found to be breaking the terms of said license.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
> > Linux is the fastest growing unix-ish operating system out there.
> If you mean in terms of raw sales, it's OsX, not Linux.
Yeah right, raw sales is surely a good measure for a free OS.
> If you mean in terms of percentage userbase growth, it's QNX, not Linux.
Percentage growth is even more meaningless. A system going from zero to one user has thus infinite grow??
Meaningful measures are e.g. marketshare, total number of users or total number of installed systems.
> Your GPL is costing you tremendously.
No it doesn't. Any GPL project can incorporate BSD code, but not the other way around.
> with GPL, it's illegal for me to refuse even to release one line of source.
Only when you plan on releasing the binaries and that's really the point of the GPL.
> I can't release the object because of my Nintendo NDA, and I can't refuse to release the object because then I'm in violation of the GPL.
It obviously didn't occur to you that it might be the Nintendo NDA which is bogus and broken. NDAs for APIs are just plain stupid, so instead of ranting here against the GPL, simply refuse to develop for a plattform with such a hostile policy. If you don't (be it by choice or by necessity), you reinforce such policies and thus demonstrate the need for the GPL.
> But I can't use them, because GPL is so ridiculously paranoid.
As long as there are companies out there which demand NDAs for APIs, sue customers for reverse engineering or amass software patent porfolios, the question is really: Is it paranoid enough?
"As always, Microsoft remains committed to working with the open source software community ..."
Yeah, right
Speak for yourself. I find it quite entertaining with attractive members of either sex...
Microsoft is right that they aren't party to the license and that they aren't copying the distributed code. So, technically, "the license doesn't apply to them".
However, what does apply to them is the contract they have with their customers when they distribute vouchers, and the GPLv3 does apply to the recipient of those vouchers once they download the GPLv3 code. So, unless they become a party to the GPLv3 license, the vouchers are worthless and they aren't fulfilling their obligations.
This is really not so different from the kind of sublicensing agreements Microsoft makes frequently. I'm not a party to Microsoft's license with the MPEG-LA, but they are required by their license with the MPEG-LA to ensure that their license with me restricts my use of the software in the way that the MPEG-LA requires.
You can't bind Microsoft after the fact. The voucher sale was the moment of Microsoft's distribution, if there ever was one.
As a mind excercise, consider far more evil terms that the GPLv3 could have had. Consider terms that assign all profits in excess of $54321/quarter to the FSF. Would that have made the FSF rich? Imagine them going to court, standing in front of the judge, and trying to collect.
Go look at twitter's post history. He's dead serious.
Well what's the difference then if I google for ubuntu, Google provides me the link and I download & install Ubuntu? Is Google "procuring the distribution of" Ubuntu? Wow. If this holds true it leads to interesting things like if someone recommends me to use Linux then (s)he is procuring the distribution of GPL'd code and is bound by the (current) GPL license. I, personally, avoid recommendating anything this forward.
You don't know what you don't know.
Microsoft's patent portfolio wouldn't pass into the public domain in any case: The GPL3 only stipulates that those you distribute the code to get an implicit license which means you can't sue them for patent violation for using or modifying GPL3ed software, but it doesn't offer protection in any other situation.
Also, while it may be questioned whether or not Microsoft is right to claim that future vouchers are no good for GPL3 software, it cannot make vouchers already handed out retroactively invalid for GPL3: If Novell decides to redistribute GPL3 software, at least the old vouchers are valid for GPL3.
IANAL, of course.
In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
In Capitalist America, corporations control government.
Be careful - IIRC, some of the code is licensed under terms which would be open source if it wasn't for the fact that you're only allowed to use it under Windows. (I think this means that, if you run any third-party Windows or .NET application under Linux whose developer hasn't been very careful where they get source from, you're at risk of being sued by Microsoft, even more so if you distribute it.)
The writeup on this article is utter FUD. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for bashing Microsoft when they deserve it, but what they said was, they're offer to support Novell customers doesn't require they accept the GPL v3. They have said they won't support GPL v3 software, and as part of that, they are doing what they need to so they aren't forced to accept it.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Tell that to Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, an influential case in both UK and US law. That case made it clear that a unilateral offer can be binding. Modern law thus tends to consider whether or not a specific situation constitutes an offer or not. For example, placing a sign above apples that says, "Free, take one!" would constitute a binding offer. However, the "joke" of earning a harrier jumpjet in the Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. case was not found to be a reasonable form of a unilateral offer.
From the GPL: "we offer you this license, which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the library."
I think that makes the situation fairly clear on that point.
Incorrect. If you made the offer to me, then the offer is binding. It's up to me to decide whether I will return the apple or not. If you had a sign that said, "Visit our store, we are giving out free apples", then the contract has not yet been intiated. You can refuse service to me. However, most places still attempt to protect themselves with a sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to any customer for any reason."
A Porche is a car. Is a car a Porche? Bad logic.
If you want to be specific, a license is the terms of a contract that provide you with the "promise not to be sued". Licenses can be revoked, but from what I know, only if it's built into the terms and conditions of the license. (i.e. the contract) The GPL, for example, cannot be revoked regardless of the owner's wishes. The only way it can be revoked is if you fall afoul of the conditions the license imposes. This is a bit different than most licenses which carry the term, "This license may be revoked for any reason."
You can read the fine print of the American Bar Association here.
Funny thing is that a contract can become null and void in the case that the contract is breeched. If I pay you $5 for a cheeseburger, you are required to return the funds if you fail to deliver the cheeseburger. In a more extreme case, failure to pay a mortgage results in the house "defaulting" to the bank. These are very similar situations to a license where the "promise not to sue" can be revoked if you fail to uphold the terms and conditions of a license. Thus it makes perfect sense that a license is really a contract. Or at least a specific type of provision in a contract.
Well, for one I cite sources rather than positing arguable thought-experiments. The practice of law is heavily based on being able to cite existing decisions and laws. It is relatively rare that a judge is asked to create a new interpretation without having any previous references. So if you want to provide a thought-experiment, try backing it up with a reference. If you are working toward going into law, then the practice would serve you well.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
CORRECT! The EULA is a set of terms and conditions imposed as part of the sale. This is a practice that's been found legal in many cases. See Klocek v. Gateway, Inc. for an example. If Microsoft did not include a EULA than they would be on the hook for quite a few legal issues. For example, Microsoft would be held liable for a warranty of fitness under the law of many states. For another example, Microsoft would be unable to prevent the resale of OEM software. (Again, that pesky First-sale doctrine)
Then why can my toaster come with additional terms and conditions when I purchase it? Does a toaster require a license to own and operate?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
So what you're saying is that implied contracts don't exist, and that every law book in print and every law website should remove all references to these contracts because an anonymous coward on Slashdot says that such a contract does not exist?
To quote the infamous Paula Bean: "Brillant"
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You realize that what you are saying is that you think there should be no copyright on any material that is given away for free. Are you really sure you think this is a good idea? At least the advertising industry would be very hurt by this, and I'm sure it would have enormous other implications.
Yes it is better then Vi.
With vi.
1. Learn vi.
2. find your monitor scan frequences and what not.
3. find where the config file is.
4. learn how the conifg file works.
5. make a copy of the config file in case you blow it.
6. Make the change in the config file.
7. Restart X or if you don't know how reboot.
8. If works stop.
9 If not then copy the default config file over your new on and start again at step 2.
With Yast.
1. Run Sax2 by clicking on it.
2. Pick monitor.
3. Test it.
4. Done
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It took me this long to find something so stupid it had to be responded to, 3 days late be damned:
You ARE free to sell commercial support for Windows. You always have been. Just like you're free to sell commercial support for BMWs, Burger King(r) (I shudder to imagine the "support" that would need) or Monopoly(r).
I still fail to see how a voucher could ever count as distribution. Are you saying that if you buy a computer on Hire Purchase with Linux installed that the Finance Company is then bound by the GPL? No? The same applies here, neither is Microsoft.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".